H.R. 197: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009

imported post

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 197 IH
111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 197
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009 Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
[line] A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

• (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

• `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

• `(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

• `(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

• (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

• • `926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.

imported post

Granted, this only covers concealed firearms, but on the surface of it--this seems to actually be a decent piece of legislation--what do you all think?

If I read it right--it would allow anyone with a permit to carry concealed in any state or territory of the United States--even in the California and Illnois....or did I read this wrong?

imported post

As always, legislation passed by the stroke of a pen in one session may as easily be repealed in the next. Sovereign states' rights is a fine teergruben for federal meddling.

imported post

then let us contact our individual reps and let them know we want them to support this....


this piece of legislation is actually good for all of us, even if it forces us to carry concealed in states not allowing OC.

imported post

On the surface it looks like a great piece of legislation, and co-sponsored by a Democrat! The reciprocity agreements are silly and haphazard. It does say "State", so I assume DC could still be prohibited.

imported post

This could be intended as a trap for gun owners.

Sorry, I'm leary of anything that comes out of DC, especially now.

imported post

Dom wrote:

On the surface it looks like a great piece of legislation, and co-sponsored by a Democrat! The reciprocity agreements are silly and haphazard. It does say "State", so I assume DC could still be prohibited.

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha good point... let's tell DC that if they want to be a State, they'll have to allow reciprocity and concealed carry! Oh, imagine the conflict within!

TFred

imported post

Not being an overly educated person, I question the part where it reads, "....that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b)." I read this to mean that it does not apply if you bring your gun into the state with you. Websters defines commerce as: the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place.I hope that I am getting this wrong.

imported post

This is the Commerce Clause and a whole 'nother topic of discussion. The Commerce Clause of COTUS is its swinette, the musical instrument made of a pig's anus stretched over a trash can, stretched impossibly far to fit political agendas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause

Everything sold in the US is presumed to have traveled substantially in Interstate Co0mmerce.

imported post

Everything sold in the US is presumed to have traveled substantially in Interstate Co0mmerce.

Click to expand...

SCCRREF brings up a good point, because SCOTUS shot down the gun-free school zone laws via Lopez, saying the gun-free zone law stands but only if it involved interstate commerce. This defanged the act and put a limit on the Commerce clause powers. That was a good thing, but it looks like this bill works the other way for firearm rights....the limitations defined in Lopez would give the state control unless commerce was involved. Commerce didn't apply to carrying a gun in a school zone, and I don't see how it applies to reprocity unfortunately.

imported post

Dom wrote:

Everything sold in the US is presumed to have traveled substantially in Interstate Co0mmerce.

Click to expand...

SCCRREF brings up a good point, because SCOTUS shot down the gun-free school zone laws via Lopez, saying the gun-free zone law stands but only if it involved interstate commerce.  This defanged the act and put a limit on the Commerce clause powers.

Click to expand...

Actually, that isn't what happened at all. The court decided the GFSZA was a criminal law in no way designed to regulate commerce, which falls outside the authority provided by the commerce clause whether or not guns have been involved in or affect interstate commerce.

The law was re-passed with that silly "must have been in interstate commerce" bit which doesn't render it one iota more constitutional, because it doesn't address the actual reason the SCOTUS decided such a law exceeds Commerce Clause authority.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

This could be intended as a trap for gun owners.

Sorry, I'm leary of anything that comes out of DC, especially now.

Click to expand...

I have considered that distinct possibility. The timing of the introduction of this bill into the house is strange to me--it was introduced on the same day as H.R 45

the question is--how could this bill be used for a trap other than perhaps by taking away the rights of the states to legislate the possession and carrying of firearms? Of course by abrogating states' rights, they are stripping us of yet more protections under the Constitution....

perhaps this bill is just a wolf in sheeps clothing by saying the federal government has the ability to dictate possession and carrying of firearms and not the states themselves?

we need a uniform ability to carry a gun in any state or territory....and yet the states seem unwilling to cooperate--in particular California, Illinois and a few others...why must things be so diffcult?

imported post

We have the 'uniform ability' that was granted by our Creator and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. To add another layer of law is foolish. Observe existing law.

Prepare to be assimilated by the BOG. Resistance to Obamination is futile. BOG Brother is watching - OBEY!

imported post

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And so it is with this well intentioned bill. Congress has no business dictating state recognition of concealed permits, unless we get into the very murky world of full faith and credit.

There is precedent for congress doing this. There is the LEOSA law which grants rights to LEOs thatthe federal congress does not have a right to grant. That isn't to ay that I mind LEOs being armed. It means I think the powers of congress are constitutionally limited and that they stepped over the line.

imported post

I assume we can find a way t check the pro or anti gun votes of the co-sponsors of this bill ?

Doesn't the NRA have a congressional vote & pro gun vote database we can look to see if these guys are sheep or wolves ?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

We have the 'uniform ability' that was granted by our Creator and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. To add another layer of law is foolish. Observe existing law.

Prepare to be assimilated by the BOG. Resistance to Obamination is futile. BOG Brother is watching - OBEY!

Click to expand...

The problem is--not all states recognize each others' permits...I would love it if the states would adopt a universal recognition and allow us to carry in any state in the country--including in the non state actor we call the District of Columbia....Some states like California and New York and Illinois wants to shove their noses into the wind and refuse to recognize the majority of permits....and D.C thinks they are above everyone...

As for existing laws--and the fact that our rights are universal, regardless of what state we live in--I agree fully--but our Constitution has been abrogated and gutted time and again by the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act which authorized illegal eavesdropping, the War Powers Act--which has never been repealed and which still has this country in a state of declared emergency today...over 60 years after it was enacted, and various state laws which have been enacted--like California and Illinois and D.C which by and large strips us of our Constitutional rights...Our rights are for the most part gone--all we have left is a skeleton of what once was...

Our rights should be inviolable--instead they seem to be more of a pesky nuisance that has to be got around at the leisure of state and federal governments....

the only thing we lack are the reeducation camps...

imported post

SteveInAshand wrote:

I assume we can find a way t check the pro or anti gun votes of the co-sponsors of this bill ?

Doesn't the NRA have a congressional vote & pro gun vote database we can look to see if these guys are sheep or wolves ?

Click to expand...

This was from 2004, so take it for what it's worth today.

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4083&T=1

[align=center] NRA-PVF Endorses Boucher for Congress in Virginia[/align]
Friday, March 19, 2004 National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund Institute for Legislative Action 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7400 _________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: For More Information: March 19, 2004 (703) 267-3820 FAIRFAX, VA -- The National Rifle Association`s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) has proudly announced its endorsement of Rick Boucher in his reelection bid in Virginia`s Ninth Congressional District. Boucher has also received an "A+" rating from the Association. "Rick Boucher is the choice for law-abiding gun owners in Virginia`s Ninth District," said Chris W. Cox, NRA`s chief lobbyist. "Congressman Boucher is a strong advocate of hunters, sportsmen and all who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. We urge all law-abiding gun owners to support him at the polls on November 2nd."

Cox underscored Boucher`s commitment to the cause. "Rick Boucher is a strong Second Amendment supporter. As a member of Congress, he has proven to be a loyal and consistent friend of Virginia gun owners and sportsmen. He has been a key leader and supporter for H.R. 1036, common sense legislation intended to stop big-city lawsuits, orchestrated by the anti-gun crowd, that wrongly attempt to blame law-abiding firearms and ammunition manufacturers for the acts of violent criminals.
"Rick Boucher is a candidate who understands the importance of protecting our sporting heritage for future generations. Voters can be confident that Congressman Boucher will continue to be a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights in the U.S. House of Representatives," concluded Cox.
- - n r a - p v f - -

imported post

This is a good bill on the surface...what I don't like is the pre emption of individual state rights by the federal government.

It would seem to me that if the states could come together and put away their petty bickering and quit listening to the anti gunners about how dangerous it would be to allow us lowly serfs to carry guns.....when in reality I feel safer around a citizen who has a gun than I do around an agent of the government who has one....

I agree--the federal government has no business dictating how and in what manner a state may recognize a permit...BUT on the other hand--it is obvious that the states themselves are not going to move forward on any type of state to state reciprocity..because the disparities in recognition are huge....What is recognized in Tennessee and Virginia for example may not be recognized in Hawaii, California, Illinois or the USVI...and while California may recognize Texas permits--there is no legal way for a Californian to carry their gun openly or concealed all the way to Texas because the states in between won't recognize a Ca. permit....what is recognized in Virginia and in Tennessee should be just as recognized in California or Illinois...and vice versa.

what I worry about is :the federal government giveth and the federal government can taketh away that which it giveth.....when our right to carry a gun is not based on the whims of the feds, but on the Constitution.

imported post

The real consitutional question for this bill (and the answer to which will liekly determine whether you support it or not), is:

Does this bill a manifistation of Congress enacting legislation to enforce the full faith and credit clause, or is it federal meddling in state rights issues?